.......................

from the article:

“We may not be fully on board with the Democratic agenda, but this is a one-issue election. ‘Are you for Donald Trump, or are you for America.’”




https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ember-election

Well, the writing is on the wall. A US that carries out its policies with no direction and without keeping its word is not an US that can keep on being a superpower. 4 more years of Trump and "America First!" might very well be the final step into the post-American world.

Not that this is inherently wrong. The US is a sovereign country, and if it wants to carry out an isolationist agenda without competence or a rooting in fact-based governing, that is pretty much its right. Still, it doesn't take much of a history student to realize the immense gain the US has gotten over the last century due to an immense amount of soft power (and the odd willingness to play hardball, though in my opinion this one is often overstated in importance). The US is (currently) the last big empire, but it is very much an empire of diplomacy and business. You can't wage war against the world, but you can do business and politics with it.

Certainly, as long as the US is a money-train in terms of consumption and production there will be no shortage of short-term allies and people paying lip-service to US diplomacy. In that regard, the effects of Trump's first years as president aren't yet fully obvious. And obviously, a lot of nations are probably still hoping that Trump is a temporary phenomena. A re-election would send a very strong signal to look elsewhere.

If these are things that will matter in an election I don't know. A well-known political scientist (I have long forgotten his name) once said that US elections are never really determined on foreign policy, which is a bit awkward for the rest of us - since an US president wields more foreign power than most historical kings did in the centuries prior to modern democracy.

But of course, things like the Covid-19 response, attacking his own citizens' peaceful assembly with police forces, openly embracing white nationalism and the general dumpster fire that is this administration's response to anything that requires fact or research are also important factors. You can win elections without facts, but you can't govern well without them.

Trumpism is also the intellectual death-knell of modern conservatism in terms of elections. It is no longer (or can no longer pretend to be) something based on tradition, ethics, integrity or respect. You can't have conservatism without integrity. A lot of sycophants have co-opted the slogans of conservatism for many decades, Trumpism is the final undressing of that charade.

If this is true, it's the death knell for classical liberalism. We get everyday examples of classic liberal ideals being vacated by political parties/activist.

Honestly, I think classical liberalism has been dead for the better part of two decades. It is largely the punching ball of a consequentialist left and a dangerously ignorant right.

It will probably resurface though. It typically does, once people realize that things such as "rights" and "liberty" aren't magically granted, but needs a lot of hard work to keep.

Well said.

And, not to take this off topic, but I expect some really grand move from Russia or even China should it continue to look like Trump will lose.

Not sure what. But Russia and China want to see the age of America end and Trump is their best bet to end it and shatter NATO. I doubt they let him lose without a fight.

How blatant they will be is the only question IMO.

Yeah, who doesn't love a R.A.T.

Republicans are cowardly toadies to power. They'll turn the country into a dictatorship before they'd turn on Trump.

This belongs in this thread too.

-------


And more indicative is the usual Trump sheep in the GOP are increasingly fighting back against Donald.

They are putting space between what is a Trump position and what is the GOP position as Trump continues to plummet in the polls with no sign of recovery.

---


Lindsey Graham Rebukes Trump’s NASCAR Attack: ‘I Don’t Think Bubba Wallace Has Anything to Apologize For’

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) objected to President Donald Trump’s decision to lash out at Bubba Wallace and NASCAR’s Confederate flag ban.

Graham spoke to Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade on Monday during his radio show, where he sided with the racing organization’s decision to bar the Confederate flag from their events.

“They’re trying to grow the sport,” the senator said. “If you’re in business, the Confederate flag is not a good way to grow your business.”

Graham went to say it “made perfect sense to me” that Wallace would be outraged after NASCAR announced the discovery of a noose in his garage. This led to Kilmeade bringing up Trump’s tweet in which the president called the noose controversy a “hoax,” demanded Wallace apologize, and claimed NASCAR’s viewership tanked because of the incident and the flag ban.

“I don’t think Bubba Wallace has anything to apologize for,” Graham said in response to the tweet. “You saw the best in NASCAR. When there was a chance that it was a threat against Bubba Wallace, [the drivers] all rallied to Bubba’s side. I would be looking to celebrate that kind of attitude more than being worried about it being a hoax.”

That is very interesting, especially given Graham's history with Trump (from strong opposition to carrying water for 3 years). I suspect we'll see a lot of attempts at playing both sides for a good while yet though. Trump is still, by a wide margin, the GOP's most popular politician when it comes to actual voters.

Somewhat off-topic, but it is hard to fault NASCAR's handling of that incident. Reported it to Wallace, supported him throughout, even got a very good show of support from other drivers and cooperated with the FBI for a solid and quick investigation (which thankfully revealed it to be nothing). It's territory no sports organization wants to touch with a ten-foot pole, but they handled it very gracefully when it fell in their laps. As a fan of motorsports and NASCAR both, it was nice to see.

Perhaps an example for many politicians to follow.

ya the fact that Trump has not attacked Lindsey for the comments tell me Lindsey may have sought leave to be a bit critical. Trump typically attacks that type of thing to ensure he scares others from not similarly following suit and being critical of him.

He has a genuine threat in his opponent this November and wants to appeal to the centrist vote as well. And Trump would certainly not want to lose Lindsey and his seat, if he gets another term.

Lindsey Graham has a history of playing both sides and trying to be on the right side of an issue after the fact.

On June 17, 2015 the Charleston Church massacre happened when a white supremacist shot up a black church killing nine. And just like now, there were many people saying South Carolina should stop flying the Confederate flag on state government property. Here is the thing, check any comments by Lindsey Graham years before the massacre and you'll see him saying there was nothing wrong with the Confederate flag. But post-massacre when it was clear the flag was coming down, Graham quickly hopped over to the "oh yeah that flag needs to come down" group. And if given the chance he will gladly spew revisionist history and say he help bring that flag down, when in fact he helped keep it up.

The Republican Party distances themselves from Trump every time his poll numbers go bad. After a certain video came out, they all defected. Then, the polls turn around and they all come running back to him sucking up.

Trump has reimagined the Republican Party into something no Libertarian can recognize. It is really sad. But, the Republicans against Trump are against him for 2 reasons:

1) His crass way about him is viewed as beneath him
2) They only care about their own power

The Republican Party has no core ideals with which to stand on.

I hope Rand Paul can take over the party in the next four years. Create a philosophy and principles that can help guide them to making a better America for everybody.

What the holy hell!!!

Rand Paul has proven himself to be one of the most sellout faux Libertarians of all time.

Why would you hope to have him as a leader when he shows Libertarian policies and beliefs only matter to him when its convenient?

I would think you would look more to someone like Justin Amash, who you know would not sell out Libertarian values and would step down or lose his seat before he did.

Rand Paul saved the country from Lindsey Graham foreign policy. The two Senators on foreigh policy Trump listens to are Graham and Paul. Many of his decisions were from listening to Rand Paul.

And which of Trumps policies would you call Libertarian friendly?

Is this Lindsey Graham going to show up again?